478 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



being carried on independently' of any knowledge -whatever of the 

 brain, is known to the writer, in the case of a worthy police-sergeant, 

 who attained tolerable accuracy in the art of reading " the mind's con- 

 struction," but who had never even seen a brain, and who had the 

 faintest possible idea of the appearance of that organ. Unless, there- 

 fore, one may logically maintain that total ignorance of the brain-pan 

 is compatible with an accurate understanding of its contents and mys- 

 teries, the successful practice of phrenology must be shown to depend 

 on other data and other circumstances than are supplied by anatomy 

 and physiology — these sciences admittedly supplying the foundation of 

 all that is or can be known regarding the brain, its conformation, struc- 

 ture, and functions. Empirical science — science falsely so called — will 

 not hesitate to assert its ability to accurately solve the deepest prob- 

 lems of character and mind. But the more modest spirit of the true 

 scientist will hesitate before crediting itself with any such ability, or 

 even before giving assent to such general rules of character as are ex- 

 emplified by the saying, " Big head and little wit " ; or by that of the 

 worthy Fuller, who, in his " Holy and Profane State," remarks that 

 " often the cockloft is empty in those whom Nature hath built many 

 stories high." 



The fundamental doctrine of the old phrenology is well known to 

 most of us. Its great doctrine is pictorially illustrated in the china 

 heads of the opticians' windows, and may be summed up in the state- 

 ment that different parts or portions of the brain are the organs of dif- 

 ferent faculties of mind. The brain thus viewed is a storehouse of fac- 

 ulties and qualities, each faculty possessing a dominion and sphere of its 

 own among the cerebral substance, and having its confines as rigidly 

 defined as are the boundaries of certain actual provinces in the East, 

 the status of which has afforded matter for serious comment of late 

 among the nations at large. Thus, if phrenology be credited with ma- 

 terializing mind in the grossest possible fashion, its votaries have them- 

 selves and their science to thank for the aspersion. If it be maintained 

 that feelings of destructiveness reside above the ear, then must we local- 

 ize the desire to kill or destroy in so much brain-substance as lies in- 

 cluded in the " bump " in question. When vainglory besets us, we 

 must hold, if we are phrenologists, that there is a molecular stirrage 

 and activity of brain-particles beneath a certain bump of " self-esteem " 

 situated above and in front of the ear ; while feelings of veneration, of 

 hope, or of wonder, are each to be regarded as causing a defined play 

 of action in particular bumps and special quarters of the brain. Were 

 the deductions of phrenology true, or were its claims to be regarded as 

 a science founded on definite grounds, mind could no longer be regarded 

 as a mystery, since it would be within the power of the phrenologist to 

 assert that, when swayed by emotions of one kind or another, he could 

 declare which part of the brain was being affected. This declaration 

 logically follows upon that which maintains the localization of faculties 



